Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology. Vol. 2. No. 1. January 2005.

Poverty, Household Strategies and Coping with Urban Life:

Examining ‘Livelihood Framework’ in Dhaka City, Bangladesh
- Shahadat Hossain•

Abstract: The livelihood framework suggests that poverty is not only a product of material deprivation but of a set of
interlocking factors, including physical weakness, social isolation, vulnerability and powerlessness. The paper aims to
explain how the poor cope with urban life though their household strategies in reference to livelihood framework. Data
have been collected from five hundred urban poor living in three different neighbourhoods in Dhaka City, Bangladesh, by
using a structured questionnaire. The study reveals that the poor face extreme poverty and vulnerability in terms of their
economic and social conditions and cope with these adverse situations having adopted different strategies in their
households. The paper argues that the urban poor adopt such strategies through their household to survive in the city as
they have limited access to the existing economic and social systems.
Key words: Urban Poverty, Household Strategies, Livelihood, Dhaka City, Bangladesh

Introduction
The most accepted explanation of poverty is provided by social scientists who attempt to combine
both material and non-material dimensions of poverty (Chambers 1989; 1992; Sen 1981; 1997).
This suggests that poverty is a product not just of material conditions, but also of a set of
interlocking factors, including physical weakness, social isolation, vulnerability and
powerlessness. The poverty of a household is related to its resource endowments, its
organisational capacity to manage and deploy its resources, its labour force position, the
available coping mechanisms and external or family contingencies which affect it (Rakodi 1995).
Household strategies are those implicit principles that guide household members when seeking
household goods for coping with urban life. This suggests that people can choose, and choices
make a difference, despite the economic or social constraints they face. By pooling resources, by
working in both formal and informal economies, by the self-construction of shelter, by self-
provisioning, and by the skilful use of social networks, families avoid entrapment in a self-
perpetuating culture of poverty (Roberts 1994). The issue of urban poverty in developing
countries attracts research attention in recent times as the major urban centres in these countries
face tremendous pressure of population with insufficient infrastructure and social services. In
recent decades the issue of urban poverty in Bangladesh has attracted attention from scholars
especially social scientists as the major cities of the country face serious challenges of population
and poverty (BBS 1998; Islam 1990; Khundker et al 1994; ADB 1997; Hossain and Humphrey
2002; Prayer 2003). Most of the studies use macro level data to explain the trend and pattern of
urban poverty. Some of them use micro-level data to explain the spatial and economic
characteristics of the urban poor. But a few studies focus on the coping mechanisms of the urban
poor used in an adverse urban setting. However, attempts have been made in this paper to
explain livelihood framework, which has been used recently in analysing urban poverty and to
explain the faces of recent urban poverty and the strategies adopted by the poor in their
households to cope with urban life.

Data and Method

Data were collected from three lower income neighbourhoods in Dhaka City, Bangladesh
between October 2002 to July 2003. These neighbourhoods include Adabor (under City Ward-
43), Gandaria (under City Ward-81) and Kalsi (under City Ward-2). The neighbourhoods were
selected as research sites because they represent different forms of adaptations of poor
households in the city. Five hundred urban poor were interviewed from three neighbourhoods
based on their employment, income, household structure as well as migration pattern. A
structured questionnaire, constructed on various forms of household adaptations such as,

•
PhD candidate, University of New South Wales. Email: shahadat72@yahoo.com
Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology. Vol. 2. No. 1. January 2005. 2

economic activities, expenditure and purchasing pattern, shelter and environmental services,
using social services, rural-urban ties, social network and community participation, was used for
data collection. Mainly descriptive statistics (percentages) were used for data analysis. The data
from the household survey have been supplemented by some qualitative data to demonstrate the
coping strategies of the urban poor in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. The study reveals that the urban
poor experience miserable economic and social conditions and cope with the adverse urban
situations through strategies adopted mainly in their households.

Explaining ‘Livelihood Framework’

The increased attention being paid to urban livelihoods follows from a wide recognition that
significant portions of urban poor households in developing countries are vulnerable in terms of
their sustainable livelihood systems (Rakodi 1995). A livelihood is generally defined as
comprising the capabilities, assets, including both material and social resources, and activities
required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from
stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the
future, while not undermining the natural resource base. A livelihoods framework to development
draws on a conceptual framework which may be used as a basis for analysing, understanding
and managing the complexity of livelihoods:

The livelihood framework is a tool that helps to define the scope of and provide the analytical
basis for livelihoods analysis, by identifying the main factors affecting livelihoods and the
relationships between them; to help those concerned with supporting the livelihoods of poor
people to understand and manage their complexity; to become a shared point of reference
for all concerned with supporting livelihoods, enabling the complementarity of contributions
and the trade-offs between outcomes to be assessed; to provide a basis for identifying
appropriate objectives and interventions to support livelihoods. At the centre of the
framework are the assets on which households or individuals draw to build their livelihoods
(Carney cited in Rakodi 2002:9)

The indicators of Poverty Line analysis based on household consumption do not capture all
dimensions of poverty, especially from the viewpoint of poor people themselves. Poverty is not
defined solely in terms of low incomes, but uses broader concepts of deprivation and insecurity.
And any attempt to place monetary values on these aspects of personal, household and social
deprivation involves so many arbitrary assumptions that it is likely to be meaningless. Deprivation
occurs when people are unable to reach a certain level of functioning or capability. Chambers
(1983; 1989) includes physical weakness, isolation, vulnerability and powerlessness in addition to
lack of income and assets. A pyramid starting from income poverty as the most measurable, to
access to common pool resources, state-provided commodities, assets, dignity and autonomy is
identified.

In livelihood framework poverty is thus characterised not only by a lack of assets and inability to
accumulate a portfolio of them, but also by the lack of choice with respect to alternative coping
strategies. The poorest and most vulnerable households are forced to adopt strategies, which
enable them to survive but not to improve their welfare. In urban areas households seek to
mobilise resources and opportunities and to combine these into a livelihood strategy which is a
mix of labour market involvement; savings; borrowing and investment; productive and
reproductive activities; income, labour and asset pooling; and social net-working (Grown and
Sebstad cited in Rakodi 2002). Households and individuals adjust the mix according to their own
circumstances and the changing context in which they live. Economic activities form the basis of
a household strategy, but to them, and overlapping with them, may be added migration
movements, maintenance of ties with rural areas, urban food production, decisions about access
to services such as education and housing, and participation in social networks. The 'livelihoods'
concept is a realistic recognition of the multiple activities, in which households engage to ensure
their survival and improve their well being, as will be explored further below (Ellis 1998).

Livelihoods approaches propose that thinking in terms of strengths or assets is vital as an

antidote to the view of poor people as 'passive' or 'deprived'. Central to the approach is the need
Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology. Vol. 2. No. 1. January 2005. 3

to recognise that those who are poor may not have cash or other savings, but that they do have
other material or non-material assets - their health, their labour, their knowledge and skills, their
friends and family, and the natural resources around them. Livelihoods approaches require a
realistic understanding of these assets in order to identify what opportunities they may offer, or
where constraints may lie. Proponents argue that it is more conceptually appropriate, empirically
sound and of more practical use to start with an analysis of strengths as opposed to an analysis
of needs. However, it has also been suggested that there is a danger that this emphasis may
restrict policy and actions to households that have some assets on which they can build and
neglect the poorest and the destitute, who may be effectively assetless (Rakodi 2002).

Social capital is defined as rules, norms, obligations, reciprocity and trust embedded in social
relations, social structures, and society's institutional arrangements, which enable its members to
achieve their individual and community objectives. Levels of social capital and the ability to call on
the social networks involved vary in space and time. They may break down because of repeated
shocks like drought, economic crisis or physical insecurity like violence and crime (Moser 1996).
Social networks are not all supportive of the poor or effective as social capital and are generally
thought to be less robust in urban areas because of the mobility and heterogeneity of their
populations. Closely linked to social capital is political capital, based on access to the political
process and decision-making, and best seen as a gatekeeper asset, permitting or preventing the
accumulation of other assets. In urban setting, informal cultural networks can serve to transpose
ethnocentric or patriarchal rural arrangements that otherwise may have been under threat. The
dual potential of social capital is described as follows:

Social capital (or informal networks) built by households over generations in the village may
take on a different form in dynamic, multi-cultural urban context where people come and go.
This can induce new forms of social organisation at the community and city levels which
provide the basis for more effective pooling of resources for lobbying of political leaders,
engaging in partnership with civil society, the private sector and local government and for
undertaking community development and management initiatives. It can also, however,
promote an increasing sense of isolation as slum new comers are denied the ‘citizenship
rights’ of older occupants, and tenants are excluded from participating in community
activities (DFID 2001: 10).

The livelihood framework now turns to the structures and processes in the macro environment
that impact on urban poverty and vulnerability. Livelihood systems and community networks
develop in the context of shifting relationships between the state, market and society. These
shifts are significant for urban vulnerability as they entail a redistribution of power and
responsibility in relation to poverty reduction and development. As Beall and Kanji note (1999:21-
22):

The emphasis by mainstream development agencies on partnership, decentralisation

and ‘community participation’ has increased during the 1990s. Decentralisation has
involved a shift in the role of central governments from direct providers of services to
enables, creating a regulatory and financial environment in which private enterprises,
households and community groups can play an increasing role in meeting their own
needs. Responsibilities have shifted to local (public and private) levels. While
decentralisation has the potential to provide new opportunities for previously excluded
groups to participate in local planning process, much depends on local power structures
and the mobilisation of resources often remains a critical problem.

However, livelihood framework begins ‘from the bottom up’, drawing largely from literature on
sustainable livelihoods. It then considers the structures and process ‘from the top down’ that
enable and constrain urban development. The final component of the framework includes a focus
on urban governance as the meeting ground between these two constructs.

Poverty, Household Strategies and Coping with Urban Life: Evidence from Dhaka City
Economic Activities
Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology. Vol. 2. No. 1. January 2005. 4

The urban poor are mostly employed in self-managed low paid jobs in the informal urban sectors
like rickshaw pulling (29.4%), street vending and selling (22.8%), construction work (6.4%),
driving and transport work (4.6%), factory work (5.2%) and personal servicing (7.6%). A small
portion (4.8%) work in government and semi-government organizations. About 35% of the urban
poor frequently face underemployment due to lack of employment opportunities, physical illness,
staying in their ancestral villages. Significant portions of the urban poor (32%) are harassed
physically, mentally and sexually at their work places. About 12% of the urban poor mentioned
about unsafe working condition, which sometimes causes injuries and damages to their physical
and mental health. The rates of income, wage and productivity are very low among the urban
poor. The average monthly income of households is only Taka 4452 (US$75). But the intra-
household income difference (Sd.2453) is quite significant. The condition of female-headed
households is comparatively more miserable than male-headed households.

Entering more household members into the workforce is the main survival strategy of the urban
poor. This is why female participation in the urban work force is considerably higher among the
poor than among their rural counterpart. Sometimes the female members use domestic spaces
for both production and reproduction through operating income-generating activities with the
assistance from other family members. This type of home based work is a manifestation of the
urban poor women’s involvement in the household production-reproduction sphere in the local
space- the setting where poor women live with the members of their households.

Expenditure and Purchasing Pattern

The urban poor mostly spend their earnings to fulfil their basic needs especially for food and
shelter. The average monthly household expenditure is only Tk.4156 (US$70). There is also a
high level of intra household differentials (Sd.1957.18) in expenditure. The expenditure of single
headed households in the city is comparatively lower than other forms of poor households. More
than 60% of the earnings of single headed households are spent in the rural areas where their
family members are also living. The expenditure of male-headed households is higher than that of
the female-headed households. About 57% of the poor who are living in the low cost housing
developed in low-lying land in urban peripheries spend a certain amount of their earning on
housing. As most of their earning is used for food and shelters, the poor spend very small portion
of their earning on clothing, medicine, education and other incidentals.

The urban poor mainly buy food items like rice, pulses, potatoes and vegetables at a low cost
from retail shops located in their neighbourhoods. They rarely go to wholesale markets to buy
such a small amount of goods though the price of goods in those markets is comparatively lower.
They usually buy bad quality fish from local fish-markets at low costs. Moreover, they can not
afford expensive items like meat, milk and fruit. About 50% of the urban poor buy meat or poultry
once or twice a month. It was found that 59% and 71.8% did not buy milk or fruit in the week they
were interviewed either. The urban poor rarely buy new clothes from the market places. Most of
them get used clothes from relatives, landlords and employers. They sometimes buy cheap
clothes for their family members from second-hand markets. Besides these cheap clothes, they
buy used cookeries, furniture and other household goods from second hand markets at low price.

Shelter and Environmental Services

The urban poor have little access to urban land and they mostly build their houses on vacant
private and government land and thereby become squatters in the city. Most of them are living in
jupri which are constructed from low cost housing materials like tin, bamboo, straw and
polythene. These houses become more vulnerable during rainy season. Only 18% of the
households are living in semi pucca / pucca housing with permanent walls. And most (73.8%) of
these poor urban dwellers are used to living in single roomed housing. In many cases more than
five members of the households live in one congested room. Of the single headed households,
most live in appalling conditions with twenty to thirty people living in a single room. Only 15.6%
households, with extended families, live in housing with more than one room. The majority of
households (54%) have no cooking facilities and they cook inside their only room or open spaces.
Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology. Vol. 2. No. 1. January 2005. 5

Another 46% have access to a common chula (oven) - where ten to fifteen households share one
kitchen with four to six chulas.
About sixty percent of households use firewood and straw for cooking, which are mostly collected
by them. They sometime get electricity connections from informal sources and their access to
electricity is inadequate and irregular. Most of the poor have no individual access to the city's
water supply and they collect water for drinking from a common municipal tap or from hand tube-
wells They usually wait for a long period of time to get water from public municipal taps. More
than 65% of households have no access to city sewerage systems and share pit latrines, which
are temporary and made by them. This type of latrines pollutes neighbourhood environment as
well as the whole city environment. Most of the poor (64.4%) living in the city have no access to
drainage facilities. Only 17.8% have access to municipal waste disposal facilities and the rest of
them dispose in generally marshy land adjacent to their settlements, which also pose serious
challenge to the environment of the neighbourhood.

Using Social Services

The urban poor have very limited access to the existing health care facilities. Only 33.4% use
services from city health centres, most of which are operated by Non-Government Organizations
(NGO). Less attention from physicians (22.6%), lack of medicine in the hospitals (17.6%), high
fess and charges (11 %) and far to travel (14%) are the major reasons for not using government
hospitals by the urban poor. The majority (58.2%) get their medicine from pharmacies without the
consultation of trained physicians. About 29% of the poor take medical advice regarding maternal
health from the heath centres operated by NGOs. At the period of child delivery only about 5% of
the poor takes help from the doctors and nurses and the rest of them take help mostly from
untrained persons, family members and relatives.
The poor have low level of education and employment training. More than 60% of the poor have
had no formal schooling in their lifetime. There is at leat one school-age child in 50% of the
households who is not currently attending school. Despite the high percentage of illiteracy among
the urban poor a very small portion of them attended non-formal education programs (NFEP)
managed by NGOs. The poor have low level of employment training, and have limited access to
such training. Only about 17% of the poor ever attended in skill development training program.

Due to poverty the poor can hardly think about recreation and socialising. They rarely participate
in the city's cultural activities despite living in the city over a long period of time. They typically
pass their leisure time by gossiping with family members as well as community members. They
have little access to out door game facilities in the city and they pass their time by playing few
indoor games like carom, ludo and card games. Some of them pass their leisure time only by
watching television at their homes or in some communal places. Only 21.6% of the poor in the
city go to parks, zoos and museums for recreation.

Rural-Urban Ties
The urban poor migrated from different rural districts due to ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors. River erosion
(14.6%), small income in the rural areas (20%), available job services in the city (32.8%) and
accompanying the family (17%) are major reasons for their migration to the city. But after
migration to the city the poor migrants fail to achieve their expectations and sometimes they
consider their previous life better than present one. But they don’t move from the city due to their
present economic reality. Despite living in the city for a long period of time they do not generally
loose their bonds with their villages. Gugler (1997) refers it as ‘life in a dual system’.

Box-1: Major Household Strategies of the Urban Poor

Economic Activities
Involvement in urban informal sectors
Participation of female/children in labour force
Changing domestic spaces for production and consumption
Urban agriculture
Expenditure and Purchasing Pattern
Spending money mostly for food items
Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology. Vol. 2. No. 1. January 2005. 6

Spending little amount for non food items

Avoiding luxurious items
Buying second-hand clothes at low price
Shelter and Environmental Services
Self-help housing with low cost materials
Renting low cost housing/ Leasing land and renting houses to others
Using utility services from informal sources
Collecting firewood
Using Social Services
Using local pharmacies for medicine
Using folk medicine
Using health services provided by Non-government Organizations
Sending children to schools of Non-government Organizations
Recreation by indoor games
Rural-Urban Ties
Meeting relatives in villages
Visited by village guests
Sending money to villages
Cultivation in villages
Social Network
Using kinship for social network
Using fictive kinship (village fellow)
Making neighbourhood based social network
Maintaining patron-client relationships
Community Participation
Using informal power structure
Involvement with community based organizations
Using urban development agencies
Participating in urban politics

The urban poor felt better identifying themselves as villagers rather than city dwellers. About 80%
of the urban poor maintain a connection with villages, which they visit at least once a year. But
the connection with rural districts is correlated with the period of stay in the city and the pattern of
migration. The number of those visiting rural areas is significantly higher among recent and
temporary migrants than long-term and permanent migrants. Although meeting relatives (43.6%)
and providing financial help (23%) are the most common reasons for visiting rural areas, 10.2% of
the urban poor visit rural areas mainly for observing Edul-Fetar, a religious festival. Another
15.2% visited rural areas to look after their former homesteads and agricultural land, bringing
back rice, wheat, vegetables and fruit cultivated by them or by their relatives. Few urban poor
who have small amount of savings buy agricultural land in their ancestral villages.

Social Network
Social networking plays an important role in coping with urban life since it works as 'social
capital'. The urban poor maintain both 'blood' networks (12.8%) and marriage networks (7.4%) in
the city. Beside these kinship networks they have fictive network - based mainly on their district of
origin. This type of network becomes social capital in the context of migration to the city - by
providing migration related information and adaptation to city life, and by providing initial
accommodation and employment information. After migration to the city neighbourhood where
they live, it becomes important in terms of their social network. About 37% of the urban poor have
close relationships with their neighbours. Employment and land lordship also plays important role
for social networks for a considerable portion of urban poor.
The poor mostly maintain their relationships with relatives, friends and village fellows who are
living in the same community. Only about 16% have connections with the people living outside
their immediate neighbourhoods. The poor households who are living in the city for a long period
of time have wider social network. These long-tem households maintain more relationships
outside their communities than the households recently migrated to the city. Social network
Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology. Vol. 2. No. 1. January 2005. 7

working as a social capital helps to perpetuate reciprocity in their microeconomic life. More than
50% of the urban poor visit and invite each other to social occasions. The relatives, friends and
neighbours help the poor to mitigate their economic and social crisis. More than 53% of the poor
provide/receive financial help from their kin, fictive kin and neighbours and another 27% of them
provide/receive non-financial support from these relatives and friends.

Community Participation
Grouping, factionalism and feuds are characteristics of the urban poor. The poor form committees
to resolve existing conflicts in the neighbourhood. They rarely rely on help from law enforcement
agencies (especially the police) to mediate in or mitigate their problems. More than 28% of the
urban poor are members of different community based political organizations, cooperatives and
voluntary organizations. The rural districts from where the urban poor migrated plays an important
role in community-based organization. Hossain (2000: 105) points out, “ regional factors has
become the main cause of groupings and organization. District of origin divides them into different
fractions and leaders are sometimes selected considering their rural origin.”
Their participation is not limited to their own communities. Most (64.6%) are registered city voters
and about 55% cast their votes in the last city corporation election. But their level of integration
with city politics is determined by their household structure. The single headed households who
have mostly migrated to the city recently are not interested in city politics. They are mostly
interested to earn more money so that they can support their family members. But the majority
(68.4%) shared strong nationalist or liberal political ideology and cast their votes mostly based on
their party ideology. A considerable portion of the poor (27.4%) participates in action politics like
picketing during strikes, joining public meetings and joining party meetings. Despite participating
in different political activities and maintaining contact with the elected bodies they can not achieve
their expected goals. The leaders use them for their interests and generally ignore their claims.
Due to their poverty and vulnerability they cannot exert any strong pressure upon urban
government. They consider them vulnerable and powerless in the city; as such they are not
interested to attend the protests against urban government.

Conclusion
Rural-urban migration does not create improved opportunities for a significant portion of city
dwellers living in slums as squatters. They invariably live below the poverty line and have little
access to employment in formal sectors. They have failed to secure a sustainable livelihood in the
city despite living for a long period of time. The poor communities are vulnerable in terms of their
physical and social capital. They have little access to the city's social and political structure, which
also shows their vulnerable situation. Urban government has little initiative to create opportunities
for the poor sections of city's population. The poor communities cope with urban life through
'household strategies' such as: putting more family members into the work force, through petty
trading, avoiding many basic goods, which represent luxuries to them, increasing their household
size by inducting more relatives, withdrawing their children from education, constructing their own
shelter, using kinship as social capital, and establishing patron-client relationships with local
leaders. There is an intra-household variation of coping with poverty and deprivation based on
households having more than one income earning member, having access to urban or rural land,
living in self constructed housing and a renting room to others, having access to city politics for
better prospects of wellbeing. However, the livelihood framework explains their situations very
well, as it combines both local level issues of the community and macro structures.

Acknowledgment: The early version of the paper was presented at 54th Annual Meeting of the
Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP), August 13-15, 2004 at Cathedral Hill Hotel,
1101 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA, USA

References:
Asian Development Bank.1997. Addressing the Urban Poverty Agenda in Bangladesh. Dhaka:
UPL
Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics.1998. Analysis of Basic Needs Dimensions of Poverty (Vol.3).
Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology. Vol. 2. No. 1. January 2005. 8

Dhaka: Ministry of Planning

Beall and Kanji.1999.Households, Livelihoods and Urban Poverty, Theme paper 3. Urban
Governance, Partnership and Poverty Series, University of Birmingham, UK
Chamber, R. 1983. Rural Development: Putting the Last First. London: Longman
…..1989. ‘Vulnerability, Coping and Policy' IDS Bulletin, 20, 2: 1-7
.......1992. 'Poverty in India: Concepts, Research and Reality' in Harris et al (eds.) Poverty in India:
Research and Policy. Bombay: Oxford University Press.
DFID.2001.Meeting the Challenge of Poverty in Urban Areas, Final Draft. UK
Ellis.1998.‘Household Strategies and Rural Livelihood Diversification’ Journal of Development
Studies, 35,1:1-38
Gugler, Josef.1997. ' Life in a Dual System Revisited: Urban-Rural Ties in Enugu, Nigeria, 1961-
1987' in Josef Gugler (eds.) Cities in Developing World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hossain, Shahadat. 2000. ‘Social Life of Slum Dwellers in Dhaka City’ Journal of the Institute of
Bangladesh Studies, XXIII: 99-111
Hossain, Shahadat and Michael Humphrey. 2002. 'The Concept of 'Culture of Poverty' and the
Slums of Dhaka City' Inter-Cultural Studies, 2, 2: 73-84
Islam, Nazrul.1990. The Urban Poor in Bangladesh. Dhaka: Centre for Urban Studies.
Khundker, N. et al. 1994. 'Urban Poverty in Bangladesh: Trend, Determinants and Policy Issues'
Asian Development Review, 12, 1
Moser, C O N. 1996. Confronting Crisis: A Comparative Study of Household Responses to Poverty
and Vulnerability in Four Urban Communities. Environmentally Sustainable Development
Studies and Monograph Series No 20. Washington: World Bank.
Prayer, J. A. 2003. Poverty and Vulnerability in Dhaka Slums: The Urban Livelihoods Study.
Hampshire: Ashgate
Rakodi, C. 1995. 'Poverty Lines or Household Strategies? Habitat International, 19, 4: 407-426
…….. (2002) A Livelihood Approach-Conceptual Issues and definition in Carole Rakodi and Tony
Llyod- Jones Urban Livelidoods: A People Centred Approach to Reducing Poverty.
London: Earthscan
Roberts, Bryan. 1994. 'Informal Economy and Family Strategies' Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 18, 1: 6-23
Sen, A.K .1987. Poverty and Famine: an essay on entitlement and deprivation. London: Clarendon
......1997. Inequality Re-examined. Cambridge, Massachusets: Harvard University Press